Korean Property After a Foreign Divorce: Is It Too Late to Claim?

The opening scenario below is a composite drawn from patterns that recur in cross-border cases. It does not describe any specific client or matter.

The divorce took place years ago, in another country. There were hearings, lawyers, a final decree. The house abroad was dealt with, and so were the bank accounts. But there was also an apartment in Seoul, bought during the marriage and registered in the other spouse’s name. Nobody quite got to it. Perhaps the foreign court did not think it could reach Korean real estate, perhaps the parties meant to sort it out later, or perhaps it simply fell between the cracks.

Now the other spouse is living in that apartment, or renting it out, or has started talking about selling it. And the question is whether anything can still be done in Korea.

Korean law does not answer that with a yes or a no. It answers with a sequence. The order of the questions matters more than any single answer.

Question one: what did the foreign decree say about the Korean property?

Everything else depends on this. Two different things are easily run together here. Whether a foreign divorce decree meets the requirements of Article 217 of Korea’s Civil Procedure Act is one question. Giving effect to the decree’s property orders against assets in Korea is another: a transfer of title or a payment can be compelled only after a Korean court grants an execution judgment (Civil Execution Act Art. 26). A decree that meets Article 217 nonetheless has a consequence people often do not expect, even before any execution judgment is sought. Under Article 11(3) of the Act on Private International Law (국제사법), where a recognisable foreign judgment exists, a Korean court must dismiss a later Korean action between the same parties for the same thing. The Supreme Court confirmed the same logic in its judgment of 12 June 2025 (2024Da315527, 2024다315527): a party who already holds a final judgment in its favour, including a foreign one that meets Article 217, has no legitimate interest in suing again for the same claim.

So the starting point is not “Korea or abroad?” It is reading the decree.

Sources: Civil Procedure Act Art. 217; Act on Private International Law (Act No. 18670, in force from 5 July 2022) Art. 11(3); Civil Execution Act Arts. 26-27. The table sets out the structure of the rules and does not state the outcome of any individual case.

Where the decree did decide the Korean property, the issues are the ones we discuss in our guides to recognition of a foreign divorce judgment in Korea and enforcing a foreign court judgment in Korea. The rest of this article concerns the third row: the property that the foreign proceedings never reached.

Question two: will a Korean court hear the claim at all?

A Korean court needs international jurisdiction before it looks at the merits. Article 56(1) of the Act on Private International Law gives Korean courts jurisdiction over matrimonial matters in four listed situations: where one spouse is habitually resident in Korea and Korea was the couple’s last common habitual residence; where the claimant and a minor child, or some of the children, are habitually resident in Korea; where both spouses are Korean nationals; and where a Korean national habitually resident in Korea brings a case solely to dissolve the marriage. Outside those situations, the general rule in Article 2 applies: jurisdiction exists where the parties or the dispute have a substantial connection with Korea.

The leading guidance on what that means in family cases is the Supreme Court’s judgment of 4 February 2021 (2017Meu12552, 2017므12552). Both spouses were Canadian nationals domiciled in Canada. One of them had stayed in Korea for a long period, and property in Korea was among the assets in dispute. One spouse sued in Korea for divorce, consolation money and property division. The other argued the case belonged in Canada. The Supreme Court upheld Korean jurisdiction. It said that in family cases the substantial connection is assessed by weighing, among other things, the parties’ nationality and habitual residence, the place where the facts giving rise to the dispute arose, and, where property division is a main issue, the location of the property, together with the governing law, access to evidence, the parties’ convenience and the effectiveness of the judgment.

Two features of that case should be kept in view. First, it was decided under the previous version of the Act; the current Article 2 keeps the same substantial-connection test in revised wording. Second, divorce and division were claimed together in Korea. Where the divorce has already been granted abroad and only the Korean property remains, the same factors are weighed on different facts. We have not identified a published Supreme Court decision that squarely addresses a stand-alone Korean property division claim brought after a foreign divorce, so this should be treated as a fact-specific question rather than a settled rule in either direction.

Question three: which country’s law decides the division?

Article 66 of the Act on Private International Law applies the ladder in Article 64 to divorce: first the spouses’ common national law; failing that, the law of their common habitual residence; failing that, the law of the place most closely connected with them. There is one override. Where one spouse is a Korean national habitually resident in Korea, divorce is governed by Korean law.

This is not a technicality. In 2017Meu12552 the lower court, upheld by the Supreme Court, divided the property under the civil law of Quebec, the spouses’ common national law, even though the case was heard in Seoul. A Korean court applying foreign law is entirely normal in this area.

It also matters for the next question. The two-year limit discussed below is a rule of the Korean Civil Act. Where Korean law governs the division, it applies. Where another law governs, the time question has to be looked at under that law. Which law governs is therefore not an academic preliminary; it decides which clock is running.

Question four: the two-year clock

Article 839-2(3) of the Civil Act (민법) provides that the right to claim property division lapses when two years have passed from the day of divorce. Article 843 applies the same rule to judicial divorces. The Supreme Court has made clear how strict this is.

In a decision of 10 November 2022 (2021Seu766, 2021스766), the parties had been divorced by a judgment that became final on 5 July 2018. In that earlier case, one spouse’s property division claim had been dismissed because that spouse already held more than his or her share. On 17 June 2020, within the two years, the other spouse petitioned for division of the excess. Later in those proceedings, the first spouse argued that the petitioner’s retirement allowance, which had not been counted the first time round, should also be included. The lower court rejected that argument as out of time. The Supreme Court quashed the decision and, in doing so, set out the general rule:

Three consequences follow for someone abroad.

Letters do not stop the clock. A demand, a negotiation, an exchange between lawyers in another country: none of these is a petition to a Korean family court.

Only the assets named are protected. A petition filed in time protects the assets it covers; once the two years have passed, the right to claim division of property not named in it is extinguished (Supreme Court decision 2018Seu18, 22 June 2018). Korean law does allow an additional claim for property that was never examined at all in the earlier division case and is discovered only after that case became final (Supreme Court 2000Meu582, 28 February 2003). But that is a narrow opening, and it does not extend the deadline: the additional claim must itself be filed within two years of the divorce (2018Seu18). Knowing what the other spouse holds in Korea before filing is part of the claim, not an afterthought.

The start date needs checking. The rule counts from “the day of divorce”. Where the divorce was granted abroad, which date that is, and whether the decree is recognisable in Korea at all, are points to settle at the outset rather than assume. Recording a foreign divorce on the Korean family register, which we discuss in our article on remarrying in Korea after a divorce abroad, is a separate step from the property question.

If more than two years have already passed, that is a serious obstacle where Korean law governs, but it is not the end of every analysis. Whether the decree itself covers the property, how title is held, and which law governs can each change the picture. Those are questions about the specific documents, and they are worth asking before concluding that nothing can be done.

When the property is in both names

Not every Korean property is registered to one spouse alone. Where title is held in both names, dividing the property itself between former co-owners is, in principle, a matter for partition of co-owned property under Articles 268 and 269 of the Civil Act, which proceeds in the civil courts rather than the family court. That is a different proceeding, with its own rules, from a property division claim between former spouses. Which route, or which combination, fits a particular file depends on the decree, the title and the timing.

While the question is being settled

Every step above takes time, and in the meantime the property remains in the other spouse’s hands. It can be sold or mortgaged. Where that is a real risk, a provisional attachment or an injunction against disposal is often considered before or alongside the main claim. These are separate applications to the court, distinct from the property division case itself, and the timing of the application can significantly affect what is still there to divide at the end.

Frequently asked questions

I was divorced outside Korea and our apartment in Korea was never divided. Can I still claim a share in Korea?

Possibly, but three questions come first. What the foreign decree said about the Korean property: if it already decided that property and meets Korea’s recognition requirements, a fresh Korean claim for the same thing is not available (Article 11(3) of the Act on Private International Law; Supreme Court 2024Da315527, 12 June 2025), and the question becomes enforcement, which requires an execution judgment from a Korean court. Whether a Korean court has international jurisdiction over a separate property claim, which turns on substantial connection under Article 2 of that Act. And time: where Korean law governs the division, the right to claim lapses two years after the divorce under Article 839-2(3) of the Civil Act.

Does the two-year limit for property division apply if my divorce was granted abroad?

Where Korean law governs the property division, yes. Article 839-2(3) of the Civil Act, applied to judicial divorces by Article 843, provides that the right to claim property division lapses two years from the day of divorce. Which law governs is decided first under Articles 66 and 64 of the Act on Private International Law, and where the divorce was granted abroad, the date that counts as the day of divorce should be established at the outset rather than assumed.

Is it enough to send the other spouse a demand letter within two years?

No. In decision 2021Seu766 of 10 November 2022, the Supreme Court of Korea held that the two-year period is an exclusion period that must be met by filing a property division petition with the court, not by asserting the right out of court. It also held that, absent special circumstances, assets not made the subject of the petition before the period expires cannot be treated as having been claimed in time. Property never examined in an earlier division case and discovered only after it became final can be the subject of an additional claim, but that claim must also be filed within the two years (2018Seu18, 22 June 2018).

Can a Korean court hear a divorce-related property claim when neither spouse lives in Korea?

It can, depending on the connection. In 2017Meu12552 (4 February 2021), the Supreme Court upheld Korean jurisdiction over a divorce and property division case between two Canadian nationals domiciled in Canada. Among the factors it listed for family cases is the location of the property where property division is a main issue. That case concerned divorce and division claimed together in Korea; whether a stand-alone claim after a foreign divorce has a sufficient connection is decided on the facts.

Related reading: Consolation Money vs. Property Division for Foreign Spouses · Can a Foreign Divorce Judgment Be Recognised in Korea? · Enforcing a Foreign Court Judgment in Korea

This article is general legal information, not legal advice on any individual matter. Whether a claim is available depends on the foreign decree, the registration of the property and the governing law in each case. Written as of 28 October 2026, based on the Civil Act (as in force from 17 March 2026) and the Act on Private International Law (Act No. 18670, in force from 5 July 2022).